PROBLEMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PARTY

I repeat: Problems of the History of the Party (Outline). Let us think that we must always bear very much in mind what Chairman Mao said, that it was not very convenient to make a history of the Party; on the other hand, it was not at all simple because histories are always subject to being corrected. It will be said to me, but there was a history of the CPC,³ yes, that of ………,⁴ but then it was condemned, that history was condemned in the Cultural Revolution; it may be said, but the history of the Bolshevik Party, well, the Bolshevik Party has also undergone many modifications afterward.

Chairman Mao says that there is a model there, a masterpiece, yes, but let’s suppose what Comrade Stalin wrote there about dialectical and historical materialism, is it correct? No, according to the Chairman himself, with his approach to contradiction, no, it clashes, he does not refer to it explicitly; it is a way of having conceived it and the lessons he draws from it. Don’t think, then, that what is there⁠—if you read Volume III, the Chairman says it is a masterpiece, thus he says that we must all study it⁵⁠—don’t think now that what is treated there by Comrade Stalin about dialectical and historical materialism is correct. No, it openly clashes with what the Chairman proposes in the contradiction. Why? Comrade Stalin proposes four laws and does not even call them laws, he calls them features. One has to know how to understand things. In short, it is an exceptional work. Would we be in a position to do it? One has to ask oneself that question. No, therefore, it is not feasible, and if we take into account what the Chairman has taught us, it is better to take into account what the Chairman said and see what we can do and what suits us, what we need.

We follow the already known outline, several times sanctioned by the Party, that we have three moments in our process, remember? Constitution, Reconstitution, and Leadership of the People’s War.⁶ That outline has been adopted. Within that framework, we take up problems. That is the criterion that has guided us because, I repeat, it has already been sanctioned: Constitution, Reconstitution, and Leadership of the People’s War. Within those three parts of the Party process, from its founding by Mariátegui and its antecedents, we take up some problems:

IIII. CONSTITUTION.

We consider this point to be very important. First, our position that Mariátegui founded the Communist Party of Peru must be made clear; we reject the idea that Ravinez founded it because historically this is not the case. It was Mariátegui himself who proposed changing the name of the Party to the Communist Party of Peru. That was his proposal, except that he died and Mariátegui’s proposal was sanctioned at a Party meeting after his death. That is the problem, but the Party has not been founded by Ravinez; that is not true.

To make the struggle very clear, particularly waged against Haya de la Torre and his nascent ideas of Aprism. I am not referring to the Peruvian Aprista Party, which dates back to 1930 or 1931⁠—they say they are older than us, but that is not true; the Apra was founded, the Arpa, because that is how it is, it is an alliance, initially it was even Arpa, that was its name: Arpa, it was founded in 1925 in Mexico,⁷ because that’s the way it is, that’s the reality, with 5 points and that’s it, what else is the famous alliance?⁠—the Party (Peruvian Aprista) was only founded here around 1930. Well, we are only interested in Mariátegui’s struggle against Haya de la Torre’s criteria and positions; even more so now, because it is not only being said that there is a Haya-Mariateguism, even putting Haya ahead, but it is also being said, even now going to the extreme, Haya-Leninism, and we cannot allow that. In other words, it is a current, burning problem; we want to take up problems that are useful to us, we don’t want a history in which we inform ourselves, we want a weapon of struggle, that’s why we take up problems, that’s the reason.

- Well, a second problem within this first question would be: the role of Mariátegui.

That is another question. It must be made very clear that Mariátegui is the founder of the Party, what Mariátegui has done, what Mariátegui’s role is, especially because there is trafficking in Mariátegui, isn’t there? We cannot consent to this either, we cannot allow, then, that there be a PUM⁸ that traffics. So, it is a problem of the history of Marxism in Peru, of course; beyond that, it is a problem of new ideas in Peru, isn’t it? It is a problem of the class in Peru, it is not an unimportant thing, this must be made very clear.

What do we want to see here? Not only that Mariátegui established his line in struggle, but that his line was abandoned, was negated, and where did all that lead? To opportunism. Scandalous examples: the bastard electioneering of 1939, the frontism⁹ of 1945 when they said, “the thesis that elections must be used only as propaganda has expired; the program today is to win seats,” these are the exact words of the Party secretary himself, Jorge Acosta. Why do we use this, why do we need this problem, what does abandoning a line imply, where does it lead? Historically, our Party shows that it leads to opportunism, doesn’t it? That’s right. Abandoning Marxism-Leninism and its application here in Peru⁠—because Mariátegui did that, and in a creative way, no one can deny it⁠—abandoning that led to opportunism, led to Browderism,¹⁰ an antecedent of contemporary revisionism. So, it’s a good lesson, isn’t it? Of course, our own history gives us great lessons.

We consider that these three problems can be addressed in the section on the Constitution, the first part.

IIIII. Reconstitution.

- the other problem: the reconstitution of the Party. The Communist Party of Peru.

Why do we pose these two problems? It is linked to the above. Abandoning Mariátegui’s just and correct Marxist-Leninist position and its creative application in Peru, abandoning that line led to opportunism and we sank into the mire. To get out of it, we had to wage a struggle against contemporary revisionism. Is this linked to the above or not? Opportunism sinks us; to save ourselves, we have to struggle against revisionism. It’s a very easy lesson to understand, isn’t it? Just as the history of the Party shows that abandoning Marxism leads us to sinking, it also tells us that taking up Marxism and combating revisionism, we develop, we stand up again, we get out of the mire. That is the reason for this problem.

And the Reconstitution, and why do we underline Communist Party of Peru? Because it must be made very clear that the Party exists: and it proves this because it has opened up, in reality, with arms in hand, with a vigorous People’s War, the true and real road of democratic revolution to conquer Power. What the Chairman says when he analyzes the experience of Russia, of old Russia, of the Bolshevik Party, and the experience of China, of the CPC, confronting it with India, is being demonstrated here. He says: “Why was there a revolution in old Tsarist Russia? Because there was a Party. Why was there one in China? Because there was a Party. Why is there not one in India, there being similar conditions to those in China? Because there is no Party.”¹¹ So this is another key problem, not only for us communists, but also for struggling in this country.

IIIIII. LEADERSHIP OF THE PEOPLE’S WAR.

- Initiation and development of the People’s War. People’s Guerrilla Army and New Power.

- Second problem: the Party and the current ideological dynamic. To combat revisionism as the main danger.

- Third problem: the Party’s task at present: to lead the conquest of Power in the entire country.

There are three problems. Well, it is threaded with what came before: we have a Party. Having a Party, what did we do? We initiated and developed the People’s War. Without a Party, there is no initiation and there is no people’s war. And what has that People’s War given us? A People’s Guerrilla Army, otherwise such a war could not have unfolded. And it has given us something else, the New Power. We are solving the central problem of the revolution, we are demolishing the old order and generating the bases of what is to be the new in a brilliant perspective toward the future. That is another problem. This must be made very clear.

The second, why do we address it? Because class struggle is sharpening, there is polarization, in the world class struggle is intensifying, there is polarization, there is great contention at the ideological level, it is going to develop, we are seeing how an offensive of revisionism is unfolding once again, whether Albania does it, whether China does it as a power of an imperialist stamp, whether the Soviet Union does it, an imperialist power or superpower that contends for world hegemony; not only them, but also the imperialist powers, all of imperialism, all of world reaction is aimed against Marxism, aimed against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it is claimed that it has expired.

All of this strikes, it is what we call the current ideological dynamic and we have to face it, and there lies the key: what is it? To combat revisionism as the main danger, in the Party, in the country, in the world, against whoever it may be, a tenth-order power, it doesn’t matter to us, whether it is social-imperialism, it doesn’t matter to us, whoever it may be who targets Marxism. Because the partners collude and contest for world hegemony, but they help each other to crush the revolution, dreaming.

So, this problem is very important. Remember what we said about differentiation: is it necessary or not? Does it have to do with the rectification campaign? Of course it does. This prepares us, arms us, for what? To fulfill the task that falls to the Party. What is that task? Our problem, then, is to lead the conquest of Power in the entire country, to complete the democratic revolution and pass, without interruption, to the socialist revolution. Then, when the conditions arise, the great revolution or the proletarian cultural revolution will express itself and take place, whatever magnitude it may have, who knows, and thus it will be set on course.

So, we aim at problems that are weapons for combat. That is what we need, not a simple document someone can read and inform themselves from; that does not interest us. What interests us is arming ourselves with our own experience, with our own problems, drawing our own lessons, positive or negative, whatever they may be.

We have discussed these questions many times, yes; there is a document, I believe it is over 200 pages long, on the history of the Party, so if the Congress agrees that it be done this way, to put forward other problems, it will be feasible taking that document, which, I repeat, is about 200 pages long. But we want a short, clear, comprehensible document that the mass can handle, the proletariat, the people, obviously the communists, they first and foremost. We think about the type of militancy we have. What do we gain from a kind of tome of 300 pages or of 500 pages? What do we gain? At least today we don’t need it. Maybe tomorrow, who knows, if tomorrow conditions allow it to be so, then it will be so. But what do we need today? That is what we pose to ourselves, what do we need today? We need the history of the Party, with its problems, to be another weapon of struggle. That is the idea, that is the idea that guides us in posing this type of problems, they can be these or others.

This is what the Bureau proposes as Problems of the History of the Party, in outline form. I repeat, the document already exists, we have discussed it many times, so it will not be a major problem to extract these or other problems from it.

https://vnd-peru.blogspot.com/2026/10/mpp-viva-el-98-aniversario-de-la.html ↩︎
Peru People’s Movement: On October 7, 2020, we published part of this Document of the First Congress of the Party as the first part of our document for the 92nd anniversary of the Communist Party of Peru: OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE PARTY AND THREE MOMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY PERU. On this new anniversary, we are publishing it in its entirety and recommend deepening comprehension of it with the study of the Military Line of the Party of the First Congress and the document COURSE AND SUMMING-UP OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PARTY. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LESSONS FROM CHAIRMAN GONZALO’S REPORT to the Second Plenum of the Central Committee of the PCP.

We reaffirm ourselves in that this Party document is a weapon of combat of communists, combatants, and masses to culminate the pending task of the general reorganization of the Party in and for the People’s War in struggle to the death against revisionism, both that of the revisionist and capitulationist Right Opportunist Line structured in the prisons with the support of the Yankee CIA-Peruvian reaction, and that of the line structured in the VRAE, both sworn enemies of Maoism and Gonzalo Thought, of Chairman Gonzalo, of the PCP, of the Basis of Party Unity, and of the People’s War.↩︎
Red Library: Communist Party of China.↩︎
Peru People’s Movement: It does not appear in the transcript of the document, so the ellipsis marks of the original are retained.↩︎
Red Library: “In studying Marxism-Leninism, we should use the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course as the principal material. It is the best synthesis and summing-up of the world communist movement of the past hundred years, a model of the integration of theory and practice, and so far the only comprehensive model in the whole world. When we see how Lenin and Stalin integrated the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Soviet revolution and thereby developed Marxism, we shall know how we should work in China.“⁠—Mao Tse-tung, “Reform Our Study” (May 1941), in Selected Works, vol. 3 (Foreign Languages Press, 1965), 24.↩︎
Red Library: These three moments are elaborated on in the Military Line (1988).
https://redlibrary.info/works/pcp/military-line.html.↩︎
Peru People’s Movement: The date and place have been filled in by us where there were only ellipses.↩︎
Red Library: Unified Mariateguist Party, a revisionist electoral party that was part of the United Left.↩︎
Red Library: Frontism: the opportunist tendency to reject the Communist Party’s leading role over the revolution and its three instruments (Party, Army, Front) in favor of tailing the big bourgeoisie through elections.↩︎
Red Library: Browderism: A revisionist and capitulationist line that embellishes the big bourgeoisie and rejects revolution; an antecedent of Khrushchev’s revisionism. For a summary of the development and significance of Browderism, see The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchov’s Revisionism (Foreign Languages Press, 1964) by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag).↩︎
Red Library:

The question is, why could not India consummate a revolution by breaking imperialism’s weak link as Lenin and Stalin had described? Because India was an English colony, a colony belonging to a single imperialist state. Herein lies the difference between India and China. China was a semicolony under several imperialist governments. The Indian Communist Party did not take an active part in its country’s bourgeois democratic revolution and did not make it possible for the Indian proletariat to assume the leadership of the democratic revolution. Nor, after independence, did the Indian Communist Party persevere in the cause of the independence of the Indian proletariat.

The historical experience of China and Russia proves that to win the revolution having a mature party is a most important condition.

— Mao Tsetung, “Reading Notes on the Soviet Text Political Economy” (1961-1962), A Critique of Soviet Economics (Monthly Review Press, 1977), 37.

↩︎

III. PROBLEMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE PARTY (OUTLINE)

IIII. CONSTITUTION.

IIIII. Reconstitution.

IIIIII. LEADERSHIP OF THE PEOPLE’S WAR.